Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Berakhot

Berakhot 39 for kids: Blessings and Bread

ברכות ל״ט

🍞 This daf asks how big a piece of food must be to count as a real "eating," using an olive as the measure. It also explores which blessing goes first on different foods, and the right way to break bread for a blessing.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Berakhot 39a in Daf QuestOpen Berakhot 39b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Berakhot 39

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Berakhot 39 in simple English

Rashi on Berakhot 39a, in English Tab translation (23)
  1. It lacks the requisite measure — Regarding the blessing over produce of the earth, [the Torah] writes 'eating,' and eating [requires the measure of] an olive-bulk.
  2. The olive-bulk that they mentioned — this refers to the measure [required] for all types of eating.
  3. Accumulated inside it — ready to flow out of it, for [the oil] is not absorbed into the fruit as is the juice of apples and berries, but rather is gathered/stored like the juice of grapes.
  4. Damascene plums — these too are cooked foods from a plant called in Old French 'akdalshit'; so I have seen explained in the commentary on Bava Kamma by Rabbeinu Yitzchak son of Rabbi Yehuda. But here he explained it as 'prunes,' and so I too have heard here, and also in Bava Kamma (chapter 10, 116b) [it is explained as] 'prunes.' But this cannot be maintained, for if so its blessing would be 'Who creates fruit of the tree' — so how could he have preceded and blessed over the pullets, whose blessing is 'By whose word,' and which are not significant items, as will be explained?
  5. Pullets — poultry meat, called in Old French 'pulletry.'
  6. Who never tasted the flavor of meat — and so the meat became cherished to him.
  7. Is there no elder here — [meaning:] Am I not an elder? You should have asked me which of these to bless over in order to exempt the other types. And these foods do not come to accompany bread, but come not on account of the meal, and we say further on (Berachot 41b) that they require a blessing before eating them, and bread does not exempt them.
  8. The one who recited the blessing held — that the blessing over boiled vegetables, such as cabbage and Damascene plums, is 'By whose word,' like [the blessing over] pullets, because for something whose growth is not from the ground, such as meat, eggs, and fish, the mishna teaches the blessing 'By whose word.' Since their blessings are the same, that which is preferred takes precedence.
  9. The one who ridiculed him held that [the blessing over] boiled vegetables is 'Who creates fruit of the ground' — a significant blessing in its own right for significant things, and he should have given it precedence.
  10. Cabbage takes precedence because it nourishes — as it is taught further on (Berachot 44b): Cabbage is for nourishment and beets are for healing.
  11. Turnip heads — the tops of turnips.
  12. They cut them — [in Old French] 'menuisier,' an expression of chopping vegetables.
  13. A small cutting — this is a deficiency, and it refers to a case where he ate it raw.
  14. On the stove — on the place where the pot cooks [i.e., the stovetop].
  15. And makes a tukh-tukh sound — meaning that it is boiled and very softened, and the sound of its boiling is heard like the sound 'tukh tukh.'
  16. Beet water — the cooked dish of beets.
  17. Like beets — with regard to the blessing.
  18. Dill — a vegetable placed in small amounts in the pot merely to sweeten [the taste], not to be eaten, called in Old French 'aneit.'
  19. It is done to sweeten the taste — and therefore one blesses over the water of its cooked dish 'Who creates fruit of the ground.'
  20. The dill has no [status] — regarding its stalk: once they placed it in the pot and then removed it, it no longer has [prohibited] status on account of teruma law, since it is considered mere wood. From the fact that it teaches 'once it has given its flavor,' we learn that it was placed [in the pot] for the sake of flavor.
  21. Dry bread — [bread that is] dry, which was placed in a bowl to soak; and likewise thin dry pieces.
  22. It must be completed — the blessing of 'Who brings forth [bread]' must be completed together with the cutting of the slice from the bread, and this [dry bread soaking in a bowl] is a case that is already cut and standing [i.e., already sliced].
  23. With the slice [it is completed] — since you say that [the blessing] is completed with the cutting of the slice, what significance and what benefit is there [in this already-sliced bread]?
Tosafot on Berakhot 39a, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. Lacks the requisite measure — This applies specifically to the blessing recited after eating, which requires a set measure. But regarding the blessing recited before eating, even less than the measure [still requires a blessing], since it is forbidden to derive any benefit in this world without a blessing, whether for eating or drinking. However, for the blessing after eating, we require a full mouthful (melo lugmav). Therefore one should be careful to drink a full mouthful from the cup of blessing, so that one can recite the abbreviated three-part blessing afterward. The Ri used to say that regarding 'Who creates many souls' (borei nefashot), since it is not a weighty blessing, one recites it even for less than the measure. But this does not seem correct, since 'borei nefashot' was instituted as a parallel to 'al hagefen' (the blessing after wine); just as 'al hagefen' requires a measure, so too 'borei nefashot rabbot' requires a measure. In the Jerusalem Talmud it asks: how did Rabbi Yochanan recite a blessing over the olive - doesn't it lack the measure? And it answers that it is because of its distinct identity (beriyah) - that even if one ate only a single grape kernel or a single pomegranate kernel, one must bless, because for a distinct entity one blesses even with less than an olive's bulk. This seems to disagree with our Gemara, as implied here; if so, the halacha would not follow the Jerusalem Talmud. Rabbi Yosei explained that the Jerusalem Talmud does not actually disagree with our Gemara, for our case deals with an olive whose pit was removed and which was salted - meaning it was no longer in its natural form (biryato). But if one ate it whole, even a single pomegranate kernel, one blesses on it before and after. The Jerusalem Talmud assumed the olive was whole, and therefore needed to resolve it by saying he ate a kernel because of its distinct identity - so they do not actually disagree. Furthermore, the Jerusalem Talmud discusses a case where one blessed over a lupine bean in order to eat it, and it fell from his hand, and he took another - must he bless again? It asks: how does this differ from a water channel [where one blesses to drink but the water flows past and is replaced by other water, yet he need not bless again]? It answers: there, his original intention included the replacement, since he knew more water would come; but with the lupine bean, he did not know it would fall from his hand. He should say 'Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever,' since the first blessing was recited in vain. And so it is proper to say this phrase for every blessing recited in vain.
  2. Dormeskin (Damascene plums) — Rashi explains this as 'prunes' (Old French: pruneis). But this does not seem correct, since shortly afterward it is implied that one blesses over them 'Who creates fruit of the ground,' whereas [plums] would require the blessing 'Who creates fruit of the tree.' It appears instead that this refers to a type of cabbage.
  3. Bar Kappara gave permission to one of them to recite the blessing — This apparently deals with the blessing recited beforehand, for if it were the blessing recited afterward, we say elsewhere (Chullin 106a) that one does not join together in a group blessing (zimun) over fruits. And this deals with a case where they were reclining [at a formal meal], but nowadays we only recline for bread, so each person must recite his own blessing over everything, whether fruits or wine.
  4. The preferred one takes precedence — And so is the halacha: if a person has two types of fruit before him, the one he prefers takes precedence. The blessing 'Who creates fruit of the ground' takes precedence over 'By whose word all things came to be,' since it is more specific and significant in its own right; one should bless over the type requiring 'fruit of the ground' even if the type requiring 'by whose word' is more preferred to him personally. And if the foods before him require the same blessing, and one of them is from the seven species [of the Land of Israel], he should bless first on that one, since the seven species take precedence.
  5. He places a piece within the whole loaf and cuts — Rashi explains: he cuts for both of them, or he cuts for the whole loaf alone, which is considered as if he cut for both, since placing the piece beneath the whole loaf makes it appear that he is also cutting the piece. [Rashi says] specifically that he cuts for the whole loaf, but he did not want to explain that he may cut for whichever of the two he wishes, either the piece or the whole loaf - since the wording 'into the whole loaf' implies that the whole loaf is primary. According to Rashi's explanation, the point is: a God-fearing person fulfills the views of both opinions, like Rav Huna's and Rabbi Yochanan's regarding pieces and whole loaves. But according to Rabbeinu Tam's explanation, we cannot interpret it this way regarding pieces, since there would be no need to do so - he could simply bless on the whole loaf, which suffices according to everyone, since even Rav Huna only permitted using the piece if one wishes, but obviously if one blessed on the whole loaf he has fulfilled his obligation. It seems that according to Rabbeinu Tam's explanation, 'both of them' refers to two separate loaves of bread - a piece of wheat bread and a whole loaf of barley bread.
  6. Water in which beets were boiled is like beets — One blesses on it 'Who creates fruit of the ground,' even though it contains only water with the taste of the vegetable; one blesses on such waters just as one would bless on the vegetables themselves. Although we said above that the juice of fruits is mere exudate [and not significant], a distinction can be made [in this case].
  7. Dry bread in a bowl, one blesses on it 'Who brings forth bread from the earth,' and this disagrees with Rabbi Chiya — One might ask: what is the case here? If there is a whole loaf before him, didn't we conclude shortly afterward that everyone agrees the whole loaf is preferable? And if there is only a dry piece, how could Rabbi Chiya disagree about it, since we concluded above (Berachot 37b) that crumbs, even without an olive's bulk, require the blessing 'Who brings forth bread,' since they retain the form of bread? One can answer: this is a case where there is a whole loaf present, but he cuts from the dry piece instead. Rav Chiya bar Ashi holds that since the piece is the preferred one, he may bless on it as though it were a whole loaf. But Rabbi Chiya holds that the blessing must conclude together with the cutting of the bread - and since he cuts from it right away, the whole loaf is still the preferred choice. However, if there is no whole loaf present, he agrees that one blesses 'Who brings forth bread from the earth' even on crumbs.
Rashi on Berakhot 39b, in English Tab translation (11)
  1. Rather, Rava said: he recites the blessing and afterward breaks — he completes the entire blessing first and only afterward separates the piece, because the blessing must conclude over the whole loaf of bread.
  2. Pieces and whole loaves, Rav Huna said — if one wishes, he may recite the blessing over the pieces; but if the pieces are larger than the whole loaves, he must recite the blessing over them.
  3. Like a tannaitic dispute — the statement that a piece of wheat bread takes precedence over a whole loaf of barley bread, etc., is itself subject to a tannaitic dispute.
  4. But not from half of a large onion — even though it contains more than a whole small one.
  5. Where there is a priest present — who can receive it immediately.
  6. Where there is no priest present — the Israelite must store the teruma until he finds a priest to give it to, and half an onion does not keep well.
  7. He fulfills both opinions — meaning both sides of the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yoḥanan.
  8. He places the piece beneath the whole loaf — so that he holds both together, and breaks either from both of them or from the whole loaf.
  9. It is written 'bread of affliction' — and the way of a poor person is to eat a piece of bread; therefore one should appear to be breaking from the piece.
  10. An entire first portion — a large piece sufficient to last him through the whole Shabbat meal.
  11. Bread of the eiruv — the bread with which they had made the eruv of courtyards the day before.
Tosafot on Berakhot 39b, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. Vehilcheta k'Rava demevarech ve'achar kach botze'a — The halakha follows Rava, who said one recites the blessing and only afterward breaks the bread. This means one should not separate the piece from the loaf until after the blessing. Some have the custom to recite the blessing of HaMotzi before cutting, so that the bread will be whole at the time of the blessing, but this custom is not correct, for it constitutes an interruption of attention between the blessing and the eating. However, on Shabbat it is proper to be stringent and recite the blessing before cutting, so that one's hand not slip and break the bread before the blessing is finished, for then one would not have lechem mishneh (two whole loaves). In the chapter 'Three Who Ate' (below, Berakhot 47a) we conclude that one must wait until the hearers finish answering amen before breaking the bread. Some bring proof that one must complete the blessing before breaking, from what Rabbi Chiyya taught in the Jerusalem Talmud: one blesses over bread only at the time one is breaking it — meaning that if one were to break it before the blessing, the piece might fall from his hand, and he would be unable to eat another piece broken without a blessing; rather he would have to bless again, resulting in a wasted blessing. But if he needed to bless over the whole loaf and could not break it before the blessing, then if the piece fell, he need not bless over another piece, and is exempted by the first blessing.
  2. Mevarech al hapetitin ufoter et hashelamin — One blesses over the pieces and thereby exempts the whole loaves. Rashi explains: if the pieces and the whole loaves are equal, one may bless over whichever he wishes; but if the pieces are larger, one must bless over the pieces to exempt the whole loaves. Rabbi Yochanan says that the optimal way is to bless over the whole loaves, even if the pieces are larger. This is difficult, for then the reasoning would be reversed: according to Rav Huna, larger pieces are preferable, while according to Rabbi Yochanan, whole loaves are preferable — and it makes no sense to say they disagree with opposite reasoning. Furthermore, it is difficult why the Gemara later changes its wording to speak of a 'piece of wheat bread.' Therefore Rabbeinu Tam explains that the case involves large pieces and small whole loaves, and the meaning is: Rav Huna said one may bless over the pieces, meaning if he wishes — and the same applies to the whole loaves, if he wishes. Rabbi Yochanan said that whole loaves are primary. The halakha follows Rabbi Yochanan, for Rav and Rabbi Yochanan — the halakha follows Rabbi Yochanan, and all the more so compared to Rav Huna, who was Rav's disciple, for we say 'the halakha follows the later authorities' only among later amoraim.
  3. Aval perusa shel chitin u'shelema min hase'orim, the Gemara says one blesses on the piece of wheat bread — because wheat takes precedence, since Scripture mentions it first. But regarding pieces and whole loaves of the same type, even if the pieces are of fine bread and the whole loaves of coarse bread, one blesses over the whole loaves, as stated in the Tosefta: whole loaves of fine bread and whole loaves of a homeowner's bread — one blesses over the whole loaves of fine bread; a piece of fine bread and a whole loaf of homeowner's bread — one blesses over the whole loaf of homeowner's bread; kosher bread and non-Jewish bread — one blesses over the kosher bread first. Similarly it is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud: pure bread and impure bread — one blesses over the pure bread. But if the non-Jew's bread is more desirable and refined while the Jew's bread is not as desirable, one may bless over whichever he wishes, as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud regarding refined impure bread versus coarse pure bread — one may bless over whichever he wishes. However, Rabbeinu Shimshon instructed that the non-Jew's white bread be removed from the table until after the blessing of HaMotzi. Regarding two whole loaves of the same type, if one is more refined, one blesses over the more refined one, since it is more preferable.
  4. K'tanaei, etc. — Rashi explains that 'half of a large onion' is called 'significant' because it contains more than a whole small onion. This does not seem correct, for it would seem that the reason it mentions 'half of a large onion' is that it contains the same amount as a whole small onion, no more. Moreover, if that were so, it would not parallel the case of 'significant' used regarding the piece of wheat bread, which deals with a case where the pieces are equal. Rather, it should be explained that they are equal in quantity, but the large one is better for eating than the small one. Furthermore, Rashi explains that the tannaitic dispute is cited regarding the latter clause, that one blesses over the piece of wheat bread and thereby exempts the whole loaf of barley bread, and that one Sage holds that 'significant' is preferable while the other holds that wheat, which Scripture mentions first, is preferable. But it cannot be explained that wheat is preferable because wheat bread is inherently more significant than barley bread, for it was explained that regarding the same type — fine bread versus coarse bread — the whole loaf is preferable.
  5. U'mar sevar shalem adif — And one Sage holds the whole is preferable. One might ask: how do we know this; perhaps wheat is considered more significant because Scripture mentions it first? The answer is that the comparison is as follows: there, even though logically the priest's portion is preferable, as it is written, 'when you set apart its fat from it' (Numbers 18:30), nevertheless it is said that the whole is preferable. So too here, we should say the whole is preferable to pieces of wheat bread, even though Scripture mentions wheat first. The law agrees with Rashi, who did not want to explain the tannaitic dispute as parallel to the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Huna, for according to the explanation that Rav Huna holds that when they are equal one may bless over whichever he wishes, he is not particular about significance or wholeness — so what tannaitic parallel would there be? And according to Rabbeinu Tam's explanation that one may bless over the larger pieces if he wishes, or if he wishes, over the smaller whole loaves — this shows that he does not consider one preferable, but that they are equal according to Rav Huna. Therefore this cannot be said to parallel the tannaitic dispute about pieces.
  6. Kol heicha d'ika kohen kulei alma lo pligi d'chashiv adif — Wherever there is a priest, all agree that the more significant is preferable. Although above it was said that regarding larger pieces and smaller whole loaves, one blesses over the whole loaves, that was specifically regarding the blessing, since it makes no difference whether one blesses over the larger piece, for why should he bless over the larger one since it is not more refined? But regarding giving teruma to a priest there is a practical difference, for one should give him the larger, more significant portion, since that is more desirable to him.
  7. Maniach perusa b'toch hashelema u'votze'a — He places the piece inside the whole loaf and breaks. Rashi explains that he breaks both together, or breaks the whole loaf alone, which is considered as breaking through both together, since by placing the piece beneath the whole loaf, it appears as though he is also breaking the piece. But Rashi specifically means he breaks the whole loaf, not that he may break whichever he wishes — either the piece or the whole loaf — for the fact that it says 'inside the whole loaf' implies that the whole loaf is primary. According to Rashi's explanation, the meaning is: a God-fearing person fulfills both opinions, Rav Huna's and Rabbi Yochanan's, regarding pieces and a whole loaf. But according to Rabbeinu Tam's explanation, this cannot apply to the case of pieces, since there is no need to do so — he need only bless over the whole loaf, and that suffices for everyone, for even Rav Huna only said one may bless over the piece if he wishes; obviously if he blessed over the whole loaf, he fulfilled his obligation. It appears, according to Rabbeinu Tam's view, that both statements refer to the two Shabbat loaves — a piece of wheat bread and a whole loaf of barley bread.
  8. Hakol modim b'Pesach shemaniach haperusa b'toch hashelema u'votze'a, mai ta'ama lechem oni ketiv — Everyone agrees that on Passover one places the piece inside the whole loaf and breaks; the reason is that it is written 'bread of affliction.' Because it is written 'bread of affliction,' one places the piece beneath the whole loaf so that it appears as though he is breaking the piece. Nevertheless, one should break specifically the whole loaf, and recite the blessing over eating matza on the piece, then wrap and eat from both together, so that it appears as though he is breaking the piece — and so is the custom. But one should not recite HaMotzi, nor the blessing over eating matza, on the piece alone, for that would be performing mitzvot in bundles. It seems to me, however, that since this is a blessing of enjoyment, it is not considered 'bundling,' for at Kiddush we recite both the blessing of Kiddush and the blessing over wine together. Rabbeinu Menachem of Vienna used to do everything on the piece, with the whole loaf present only for the sake of lechem mishneh. The Ri used to first recite HaMotzi over both loaves before breaking, and afterward recite the blessing over eating matza, breaking both loaves afterward — and this was not considered 'bundling,' since he performed the blessing over both together. Sometimes, however, the Ri would extricate himself from the dispute, not wishing to change the custom, and would bless HaMotzi first over the whole loaf, break off a bit, but not separate it fully until he recited the blessing over eating matza on the piece, and then break both together.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Berachot, Brachos, Berachos, Brachot 39.